Friday, April 13, 2012

Fantasy Weapons

As much as the poster might suggest to the contrary I don't have an issue with crazy weapons in fantasy games.  After all the magic users are likely tearing the fabric of space time to shreds, what's a little over the topness on the part of the non-magical martial peeps.  Which brings up a completely alien frame of mind to me.  There is this school of thought that anything is justifiable with the words "it's magic".  Wizard turns into a ferocious beast from the far realms and proceeds to rip faces? "it's magic" Cleric calls down divine fire completely annihilating enemies but leaving friends untouched?  "it's magic" Contrasting wise if the mundanes want to do something slightly beyond the concept of what the school of thought considers to be "realistic" that it's completely out of the question and unthinkable.  Fighter wants to hit an enemy so hard it explodes and damages nearby enemies?  "couldn't possibly happen unless it was magical and fighters don't get magic or they're not fighters anymore harrumph"  Seriously why can't "it's badass" be a reason for why the mundane melee wants to accomplish something beyond "realism"?  This is fantasy for goodness sake, I expect realism to be the last thing I apply to any given situation!  Bazinga!

Art from WotC art gallery
LooneyDM out


  1. Because there is a threshold beyond which gonzo snaps my suspenders of disbelief.

    Magic is metaphysical - beyond the realm of physics. Cutting a tank in two with a katana repeals the laws of physics altogether.

    Some people enjoy that sort of thing, and more power to y'all. But please don't tell me that acepting one means I should accept the other, too.

  2. AS the Black Vulmea states, it's a matter of where one's threshold lies. If one loves Dragonball Z style combat then they would have no issue with "it's badass" being equivalent to "it's magic". If, on the other hand, they have a more Tolkien-esque perspective, then magic is allowed to contravene real world expectations, but mundane actions are not.

    This also is a matter of expectations too. If I am playing "D&D", then my expectations will be coloured by my previous experience with that game. If my GM intros the "Bucky O'Hare and the Toad Wars" rpg, then I will be open to pretty much whatever style of play I encounter as I will have no preconceived notions as to how it "should" be played.

    I've noticed that much of the nerd rage, edition angst, etc one sees with D&D is due to the leftover baggage from all the previous versions over the decades. ;-)

  3. I admit coming into D&D after the advent of 3.5 probably puts me at odds with many people's idea of what D&D should be. I certainly wouldn't begrudge anyone their style of play, I just don't grok the fun of it. Of course that's the beauty of D&D, there's so many ways to play that if you're having fun it is the right D&D for you.